Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Accountancy Commission


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. L Faraone  16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Singapore Accountancy Commission

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. nothing in gnews, and 1 hit in Singapore's top newspaper. being a Government body doesn't mean automatic notability, it seems to only be of importance for accountants working in Singapore. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)



Dear Wikipedia administrator, seven secondary sources from good print and web media sources have been added to the article. Six of these weren't previously available as they were only published following the launch of the SAC on 1 April 2013. Secondary sources will continue to be added as they become available. Ilovebeans2013 (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC) — Ilovebeans2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)




 * Weak keep 27 sources and references within the article. Granted, I didn't go through all of them, but at least some assertion of notability lies within the article. That, combined with it being a gov. body generates enough motivation to say keep  D u s t i *poke* 00:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.